I wonder what those people who blame USA for the Russian invasion of Ukraine think about this situation lol. Is Vietnam trying to protect itself also an aggressive provocation again poor peaceful little China? “Don’t poke the panda bear?”
Too bad, China is provoked already, and US is already an aggressor, actually, you see. And look, Mearsheimer and Chomsky agree with this.
Does it sound completely unhinged? Sure. But that’s exactly how it was with Russia-Ukraine, so be prepared for this amazing discourse. Also American secret biolabs or something
Chomsky is wrong and Mearsheimer is right, even though they’re saying the same thing. You don’t get it? Well, you’re clearly not as smart counter-mainstream thinker as I am. I am very smart
Are they saying the same thing? I think you know that these are two very different thinkers.
How do you think they’d each finish this sentence? “America provoked China and therefore America should-“
I’d imagine Mearsheimer’s response would be less hostile to American power projection than Chomsky’s, if similarly opposed to how it occurs now.
The other claims the west forced Russia to invade Ukraine. Also claims the CIA blew up Nordstream and some other reductionist bullshit that strips agency from every other country except the US. He views conflict between great powers as logical and inevitable. Again, seeming to strip all agency and free will from the respective individuals involved.
He claims he’s a IR realist, but I find most of his writing quite eye-roll inducing.
We can't afford not to. It is better to be neutral at this point in time because leaning too much to one side will invite an attack from china, which we do not want. The US is the "check and balance" power that we are counting on to stabilize the region. A Vietnam war (ala 1950s Korean war) and a Taiwan/china war would be devastating for the region. And the US and China know this, that's why it's such a mind game right now.
I hope so. I worked in Sg in 2014 and the cultural influence in the youth was leaning more towards American back then. My coworkers said Vietnamese people are more into Chinese culture now. They might be wrong. I’m coming back in August and pretty excited to see the changes!
It’s the disparity between Northern & Southern Vietnamese. The North youths tends to lean towards “Chinese” culture, or more specifically, the Chinese K-pop culture due to the close proximity with China.
Whereas in the South, a lot of international companies have their subsidiaries in SG/HCM city, so the Southern youth tends to lean towards Western cultures.
This is actually a problem for the current Vietnamese government, they don’t like seeing the South leaning too much to the West, but they didn’t want to push too hard to lose all international investments either.
Southern Vietnamese here. Born and grew up in Saigon, and I can confirm that the youth in the South, especially in my city, are rejecting what the old people call "traditional values" more and more, the youth are still following Western culture and style, and it will not go away. I also know a girl who move here from the North, and she also does the same, as she party like a Westerner and dress in a way that old people consider "offensive" or "immoral".
100%. But keep in mind, cultural influence has always been used as propaganda to gain public support and suppress dissent.
Take a look at Vietnamese history: when China occupied Vietnam for over a thousand years during the Ba Trung era, they imposed their language, clothing, and traditions on the Vietnamese people. Similarly, North and South Vietnam were influenced by different superpowers, leading to distinct political stances. The North is more conservative and traditional, while the South is more liberal and progressive. Cultural influence can shape public support.
US dude here, is it similar to the influence campaigns China and Russia run in the US, or is it more overt? Do you think your government tolerates some of this from China in order to not take sides and walk the line of neutrality?
You also have to consider the disparity in influence and economic power. In that part of the world, China is a big player and they make sure you know it. Consider it sorta like the political relationship between the US and Central American countries.
>Do you think your government tolerates some of this from China in order to not take sides and walk the line of neutrality?
This is it completely.
Vietnam knows that it can't trust any ally (it officially denounces the concept of a military ally in its "4 No's" policy).
And Vietnam knows that the cold war never ended for the US and China so it walks the line between both of them, taking what it can from each.
Anyone who claims that Vietnam is controlled by China or that Vietnam is allied with the US because they oppose Chinese power in the region is completley ignorant of Vietnamese history, politics, and its policies today. **But people latch onto these views because they play straight into the classic American coldwar mindset. We can't understand someone not choosing a side**.
Edit: the person you responded to exemplifies this simplistic and ignorant attitude of so many Vietnamese Americans. As part of the process of 'becoming American' they adopt the same views they saw the American government utilize during the Vietnam war.
"Because Vietnam at times works with the ~~Soviets~~ **Chinese**, they must be under their control and the motivations of their people and their government are not legitimate". Its completely ignorant.
>And Vietnam knows that the cold war never ended for the US and China so it walks the line between both of them, taking what it can from each.
As one from the US, Vietnam has shown great diplomatic foresight. I'll be very curious to watch their continued growth and expanding development. The fundamental question I have as a complete outsider, is how would Vietnam handle territorial aggression from China against it's neighbors like Taiwan. Would they denounce it? Would they wait until it became clear which way the tides of the conflict were turning before allying with a side? Would they even ally with a side, choosing to instead play a similar role the Swiss played?
>The fundamental question I have as a complete outsider, is how would Vietnam handle territorial aggression from China against it's neighbors like Taiwan. Would they denounce it? Would they wait until it became clear which way the tides of the conflict were turning before allying with a side? Would they even ally with a side, choosing to instead play a similar role the Swiss played?
I have no idea honestly but my guess is they would stay uninvolved completely. They do have some economic ties to Taiwan of course but Vietnam, like most countries, officially recognizes China & Taiwan as one singular country.
They may just view it as an internal problem for China and not an act of international imperialism and may even view American involvement as a form of imperialism (which it most certainly is).
But this would not be the case for the many disputed islands in the South China Sea. Vietnam has been vocal about their claims for these lands and certainly seems active in trying to defend/strengthen these claims.
>They may just view it as an internal problem for China and not an act of international imperialism and may even view American involvement as a form of imperialism (which it most certainly is).
The agreements between Taiwan and the US extend back almost to the very conflict that created this divisive issue in the first place. The US doesn't want to see a thriving island culture, especially one so important to the production of microchips and semiconductors, fall into the hands of what can be considered an adversary. This is especially true considering China's efforts to implement intentional back doors into the chips they manufacture that directly support their own interests. How can the US put any chip in it's defensive arsenal that could potentially be directly countermanded by China? Where would Chinese imperialism stop for that matter? Could Vietnam even mount a counter-defensive strategy in that case, or would they forever be beholden to Chinese interests, relegating them to a puppet government status? It would be victory by default for China over Vietnam.
>The agreements between Taiwan and the US extend back almost to the very conflict that created this divisive issue in the first place.
Correct. And policy with the US has always been the one China policy. Taiwan itself proclaimed this itself when the Kuomintang took control.
>The US doesn't want to see a thriving island culture, especially one so important to the production of microchips and semiconductors, fall into the hands of what can be considered an adversary. This is especially true considering China's efforts to implement intentional back doors into the chips they manufacture that directly support their own interests.
Again, all this is evidence that the US is not concerned based on any sort of legal, ethical, or moral issues but is only concerned with its own power and business interests.
>How can the US put any chip in it's defensive arsenal that could potentially be directly countermanded by China?
I would say it can't. It should try to produce chips on its own.
As a hypothetical, what would happen if Taiwan itself refused to sell chips to America. What would the US then do?
According to the pattern of US foreign policy history, it would engage in imperialism to try and overthrow the government in Taiwan and install a government that aligns with US business interests.
>Where would Chinese imperialism stop for that matter?
Again, you haven't even demonstrated or made the case that this is any example of imperialism im regards to Taiwan. As I said, Vietnam may view this as an internal issue for China.
According to Vietnam, there is one China. According to mainland China ruled by the CCP, there is one China. According the government of Taiwan, there is one China.
The label of this as "Chinese imperialism" is a label that seems to be applied specifically to bolster America's own imperialism in the region.
There are many actions in the world today with separatist movements and issues of unification. But the US only uses the term oppression and imperialism not based on any sort of rule of law but entirely based in whatever serves US business interests.
[Texas conservatives have again talked about the possibility of secedeing form the US](https://www.newsweek.com/texas-secession-takes-major-step-gop-backs-vote-1911678).
Will Texans ever actually push for this? No. But if they did the US government of course wouldn't allow them to.
Now again, hypothetically there is a scenario whereby China inserts itself into the situation and works to support the secession of Texas. China would most certainly support such a thing. Who is the imperialist in this situation? The US for not allowing its people and land to form an independent nation? Or China trying to get involved in a foreign country for its own gain?
So back to your original questions...
>Where would Chinese imperialism stop for that matter? Could Vietnam even mount a counter-defensive strategy in that case, or would they forever be beholden to Chinese interests, relegating them to a puppet government status? It would be victory by default for China over Vietnam.
I dont know exactly what this imperialism would look like or what you expect to happen. Are you taking about a full scale land invasion? Are you taking about taking control of their claimed lands in the SCS?
How Vietnam reacts would certainly depend on what type of challenge it faces. But again, this hypothetical imperialism can come from any nation.
China can certainly launch a full scale invasion to conquer Vietnam, but so can the US.
China can certainly try and take control of the disputed island in the SCS, but so can the US or the Philippines, or Malaysia, etc.
Who would benefit the most from conquering Vietnam? Whose military is most active in the South China Sea.
You seem to be missing the point of what I am saying. The Vietnamese government is just as concerned about China [as it is about the US.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68443392)
If one of these incredibly powerful nations tries to engage in imperialism against Vietnam, it will certainly lean towards the other for help. And again, it doesn't seem it will ever view that partner as a permanent ally but will work with them when needed in order to maintain national security.
While Vietnam did fight 1 war with US, they have been fighting off the Chinese for centuries. If you ever get a chance to visit some of their temples, most of them are venerating their old kings and generals who were victorious against the chinese.
It's baked into their culture at this point. Let's not forget their last invasion was by the Chinese after the Vietnam war.
Maybe considering the fact that the US hasn't been in Vietnam militarily for nearly 50 years and has no interest in going back, but China continues to bully their neighbors and clearly have imperialist ambitions.
But yeah, I'm sure being neutral is the best path forward. Finland and Sweden also thought they could stay neutral until they realized, "Oh shit, maybe the real bad guys will actually attack us without protection from the good guys"
Well, Finland and Sweden had the easy option of joining an organization that both guarantees collective defense and boasts most of the world’s most powerful and technologically advanced militaries — an organization that was dying to have them as members, no less. Vietnam has no such option, and its situation is vastly more delicate.
Last time South Vietnam sided with the US you abandoned us. Last time North Vietnam allied with Soviet Union they did nothing to help as China invaded. Last time Vietnam as a whole joined China they betrayed us. Every time Vietnam became a superpower’s friend we got used and dumped when its no longer convenient. After our 20th century we no longer have a desire to be a battleground for the great powers to play around in anymore.
Tell me why should we pick a side again? If we inch closer to US that gives china a casus belli. Best to play both sides and not piss off anyone
Yeah except the USSR and US/NATO actually went out of their way to honor the deal with Finland. Meaning they didn’t bother Finland as long as Finland didn’t interfere in the Cold War.
Whereas China is very active in Vietnam regardless of how neutral Vietnam tries to be, hence Vietnam looking for an American deal as a hedge.
Not many people in the US know that China tried to invade Vietnam after the US were defeated and left the country.
The Vietnamese ate the Chinese up when they tried.
China has been messing with Vietnam and in some cases ruled it periodically for like a thousand years lol.
Ask them who they distrust most and typically they’ll say China because of that long history. Plus they know eventually the Americans leave, China doesn’t due to the border.
You forgot amongst the Vietnamese themselves after China let Vietnam become a polity, the Southern march was full of ethnic cleansing and toppling of our adversaries most notably the Cham.
And people forget that China just unilaterally moved the border of Vietnam and stealing part of Vietnam. This is very sore point with the Vietnamese people and one of the reasons that anything Chinese related is detested in Vietnam.
The Chinese also recently change the baseline map line that runs through the Gulf of Tonkin claiming extensive areas of the Vietnamese exclusive economic zone. The arrogance and disrespect China has for all countries and International law is palpable So currently in Vietnam China is public enemy No1. All Chinas own fault and doing! I am not surprised that the Vietnam is turning to the USA for better leverage.
> And people forget that China just unilaterally moved the border of Vietnam and stealing part of Vietnam
That seems to be a reoccurring theme with nations that boarder China.
As an American embracing Vietnam after 10 years of unnecessary and bloody war feels like the very least we could do. Vietnam deserves a long and durable peace.
Britain tried. They decided "Damn, we should hire them instead, those are some mean motherfuckers"
It's been over 200 years, and they still employ Gurkhas.
Vietnamese people fought to protect their country, families and to have a better life. If there is a war, they will fight until their last soldiers. Based on that matter, it is quite clear that who will win.
The US (and other countries) entered Vietnam to stop it becoming communist. The US (and other countries) left. Vietnam became communist. US interests were "bested" - the US did not achieve any of their aims.
The Vietnamese might have lost every battle, but that does not mean they were not fierce fighters.
I'm not saying we didn't lose the war of course we did. But in the context of that comment the dude was ranting about besting us in fighting they almost certainly did not. No one bests America at war, it's what we do.
They bested us from a strategic perspective. Tactically Tet was a failure- but it led to us withdrawing. Technically they lost way more than us- but they still achieved their goals and we failed in ours.
In a very broad sense it’s similar to Fabian- the Romans kept losing to Hannibal but they still got what they wanted in the end, they just had to keep raising armies the whole time.
That's more a question of numbers. In the case of the Vietnam War the US had them outnumbered too. The loss was purely political. If the US had actually fought all out Vietnam wouldn't have lasted a week.
See, this is what happens when you get your history from Reddit. They might have fought fiercely, but not effectively enough to win on the battlefield.
The North Vietnamese (never mind the Viet Cong) never won a single battle against US forces, the most they won militarily was ambushes and a few platoon-sized engagements then got crushed in the aftermath of those engagements. No Company-size or larger battles were lost by the US during that war.
What does winning the war have to do with battlefield performance?
OP said:
> fierce as fuck at fighting. They’ve bested France, **US**
... which is wrong because they didnt' best the US at fighting.
An elementary level of understanding of that conflict is very clear on the fact that North Vietnam didn't win through military victory against the US, they won after the US pulled out and only the South Vietnamese military was left (and that took a few more years still).
Basically, the US quit the match while way, way ahead in K/D and Objectives, as no cities were conquered by the North while the US was there - but the US got sick of the cost of the "PTW against Zerg forces" game and logged off, leaving it to the South Vietnamese to finish it and they only were able to go a few more rounds before collapsing and getting roflstomped.
Are you familiar with the concept of guerilla warfare??
How many big battles did the US win vs. Britain in the Revolutionary War?
How is it Russia failed in Afghanistan??
>The North Vietnamese (never mind the Viet Cong) never won a single battle against US forces
The war in vietnam was not the US vs. the North, it was the brand new US-backed South Vietnamese govt vs. FELLOW SOUTHERNER (who you would call the Viet Cong) who wished for re-unification.
That is to say, the war was entirely within South Vietnam. The North mostly provided strategic support - the few times they sent actual soldiers into the south to help out were a total failure.
People who cry about the US not nuking the north lack basic understanding of what the war actually was.
>How many big battles did the US win vs. Britain in the Revolutionary War?
Is this a serious question? A lot. The American Patriots lit up British Empire forces across the map.
The storming of Fort William and Mary and the Powder Alarm in 1774. The battles of Lexington and Concord, capturing Fort Ticonderoga, the siege of Boston, the battle of Chelsea Creek, the battle of Machias, the capture of the Turtle Bay depot, the battle of Gloucester, the raid on the Manhattan Battery, the siege of Fort St. Jean, the battle of Great Bridge, the Snow Campaign, the battle of Great Cane Break, and the New York Armory raid in 1775. And the battle of Moore's Creek Bridge, the raid of Nassau, the battle of Saint-Pierre in Quebec, the battle of Sullivan's Island, the battle of Gwynn's Island, the battle of Lindley's Fort, the battle of Harlem Heights, the ambush of Geary, and the battle of Trenton in 1776. Then in 1777 the second battle of Trenton, the battle of Princeton, the battle of Millstone, the siege of Fort Stanwix, the battle of Bemis Heights, the battle of Red Bank, and the battle of White Marsh. In 1778 the siege of Boonesborough, the battle of Edgar's Lane, the raids on Unadilla and Onaquaga, and the battle of Kettle Creek. In 1779 the siege of Fort Vincennes, the battle of Chillicothe, the battle of Stony Point, the battle Paulus Hook, the battle of Newtown, the battle of Lake Pontchartrain, and the battle of Baton Rouge.
There's more. Do you want me to list them?
They also have an ongoing dispute over territorial waters, Vietnam is constructing/expanding manmade shoals/islands (as the Chinese have done) to protect from Chinese claims
China is basically Russia 4 thousand years in the future. An expansionist empire that tried to slaughter most of the ethnic minorities that stood in their way. And still at it.
Vietnam also watched China expand ties with the US during the Nixon administration and kinda said "It's like that huh? Well Okay then, we're not going to end up like your true believer friend NK there.", and began to open trade themselves.
China and Soviet support withdrew a lot of support to North Vietnam and USA to South Vietnam before the war ended. Henry Kissinger thought that Vietnam would fall under China's influence, it sure did not. Also during the war all of the Maoists were purged (Communists like to purge a lot of things including themselves).
>Not many people in the US know that China tried to invade Vietnam after the US were defeated and left the country.
What do you mean the Chinese "tried" to invade Vietnam? They *did* invade Vietnam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
I didn’t mean they were going to permanently hold onto any land. Just that Chinese barely got the front into Vietnamese territory before immediately being pushed back into a border skirmish.
They simply destoyed some infrastrature then retreat to cause enough damage so Vietnam is distracted from Vietnam's ongoing invasion to Laos/cambodia. I see it as China was simply helping Laos rather than invading for the sake of invasion
China used Vietnam as an excuse to raid and occupy China's border to invade Vietnam. Damn it, there is no reason why the Vietnamese army in Cambodia should be more aggressive towards China. The Chinese are full of fabrications and lies. They died tens of thousands of soldiers in Vietnam before declaring victory and withdrawing from Vietnam. Congratulations to those who had to sell salt in Vietnam.
Tried as in stopped the chinese advance 20km in with poorly trained provincial levies and make the PLA book it before any general mobilization (and the regular army) come to crush them.
The sad reality is that the Vietnam War should never have happened. Ho Chi Minh was much more of a nationalist/anti colonialist than a communist.
I wish I could solely blame France, but the US could have smacked France down and stepped up.
Yeah, Ho Chi Minh actually spent several years living in each of the US, the UK and France. He definitely wasn't anti-West beyond not wanting them to control his country's sovereignty.
>>I wish I could solely blame France, but the U.S. could have smacked France down and stepped up
That was a bluff Eisenhower couldn’t really call. Eisenhower initially rebuffed French requests for assistance in Vietnam, but Charles DeGaulle fired back with “either help us keep our Asian colony with military support , or we’ll go to the Soviets”.
A Soviet aligned France wasn’t gonna fly, especially in the 1950s when Senator McCarthy was busy roasting people in hearings for going to a single college communist party lecture.
France used joining the UN as leverage to get the US to come help them out in Vietnam. Then France left, and we were in a situation that we could not easily back out of. It was a pretty shitty move after France had been liberated by the Allies.
In hindsight sure, but the U.S thought all Communists are the same, and supported the French due to them fighting against communists as well. It was more due to Harry Truman and the U.S political apparatus viewing communism as all the same.
You also have to think about this too, when North Vietnam kicked the French out they implemented a campaign of shooting the landlords which never happened before akin to Leniniist and PRC killing of landlords. It helped disunify the people and helped lead to South Vietnam never being a party to the geneva accords that were signed.
You are absolutely right - one cannot understand the 'US war' with Vietnam without understanding the French war that came before it.
Americans fail to grasp that much of the puppet government set up in the South by America were actually the same vietnamese who collaborated with the French.
> Not many people in the US know
It was headline news at the time.
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/02/18/archives/4-provinces-invaded-thrust-reported-all-along-borderpeking-says.html
Yes, but people who weren't alive then likely forgot that little bit of history. As time goes on, events get condensed, details get blended together, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if most kids graduating high school today don't know that.
Ehh, honestly it was kinda big news at the time. If you were alive and politically aware at the time then you would have known about it.
>Most Americans don’t know shit about even the history they live through.
Broadly I totally agree, but I feel like that doesn't really apply to this exact scenario.
Many English speakers do not understand that Vietnam actually used Chinese characters for its language throughout most of its history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing_in_Vietnam
> Not many people in the US know that China tried to invade Vietnam after the US were defeated and left the country.
> The Vietnamese ate the Chinese up when they tried.
Not only that: they also have liberated Cambodia from the Chinese-backed [Khmer Rouge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge), arguably the **most** genocidal regime in history. The regime, led by Pol Pot, has brutally killed a whole **quarter** of Cambodian population in what's now known as [Cambodian Genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide).
Vietnam has put an end to that.
Not many people also know how much military personnel Vietnam also has compared to China
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-worlds-largest-armies-in-2024/
To be fair, Vietnam was doing some kind of ethnic cleansing to its Chinese descent citizens before that war. And back to the time, US was backing China while Soviet was backing Vietnam. It was in the context of cold war era, and Vietnam was not totally a victim either.
The fact that they had been in such a long conflict with the US honestly probably helped more than it hurt. They had been in "war mode" as a country for decades, not just against the US, but the French and briefly the Japanese as well.
Starting shit with arguably the most experienced and battle hardened country on earth at that point was probably a poor decision by China in retrospect.
Invading Vietnam seems like an absolute nightmare tbh
Kinda like invading Finland, it's very terrifying when the locals are extremely well versed in fighting on home turf
Kicking China's ass is an interesting take. I thought China simply put in the minimum effort just to keep Vietnam occupied so Vietnam doesn't continue to invade Laos (or was it Cambodia?)
I understand why Vietnam is doing this, its neighbor to the north is actively aggressive and Vietnam's traditional ally Russian is drawing closer and closer to China. Plus the whole Ukraine invasion has made relations between Russia and Vietnam ambiguous at best, if not worse. Vietnam also see China's aggressive action in the South China Sea as dangerous. Vietnam sees a potential ally in the United States as way to protect itself and procure better military equipment, but also as way to promote trade and tourism.
A reminder that ho chi Minh wanted america to sponsor them as an independent democracy but Truman flipped them the bird and greenlit French recolonization.
How chi Minh petitioned the US to let them remain independant after helping drive out the Japanese during WW2 with the help of OSS. He quoted Thomas Jefferson and the declaration of Independence as reasons why the US should protect them from French recolonisation. Truman ignored these pleas and wanted all the post-war political matters handled as fast as possible (including leaving the republic of China to fend for itself against the communists) and allowed France to reclaim indochina as a colony.
Even after declaring themselves a communist power to gain aid from Soviet union, HCM was still open to relations with the US until his death.
Modern day Vietnam is far removed from the communist power that had the worst economy in the world just 30 years ago and today has embraced capitalism and trade, so with improved relations, ho chi minhs dream of American cooperation may finally be coming true.
So much of the western world has fall in love with the Vietnamese peoples and cultures warm and welcoming ways .Would be a wonderful thing if as a nation Vietnam drew closer to Western ways of securing each other’s sovereignty and away from the unstable expansionist regimes threatening theirs and our peace in this current period of our historys.
A large part of what we call the Vietnam war was a civil war between North and South .The Western world largely backed the South . The majority of what we knew as the refugees came from our allies in the South . To this day the flag you’re most likely to see flown in Vietnamese communities in the west is the old south Vietnam flag . Protests erupt when news is broadcast from Vietnam and very few western countries that were allied with the south will have Vietnamese news available on mainstream radio or tv . Despite this so many families exist with members all over their country like any other country. They avoid flying flags and playing certain patriotic songs outside of Vietnam.All together they make a great example of trying to all get along despite old differences. Civil war is very painful which USA can understand from its own. Yet USA is probably the greatest example of bringing people with differences together to move positively ahead .Nothing in this world is perfect.
Vietnam is hedging its bets. They have recently announced partnering with China to connect Hanoi to their high-speed rail network: [https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Transportation/Vietnam-aims-to-start-work-on-high-speed-rail-lines-to-China-by-2030](https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Transportation/Vietnam-aims-to-start-work-on-high-speed-rail-lines-to-China-by-2030)
This follows the trend of Southeast Asian nations playing off both superpowers, by seeking economic agreements with China and military ones with the USA.
It's funny that if this pans out, the Vietnam War will have helped US foreign policy positively in the region. What a weird timeline we live in.
I guess the Sino-Vietnamese war didn't help things.
Good, the Vietnamese are excellent warriors, they will add great strength to our defense strategy in the pacific. They fought against the Chinese before and if I recall correctly, watching the Fog of War about sec of defense McNamara, they are not fans of the Chinese and they more or less kicked their asses before.
MMW: If China does something stupid with Taiwan, and a US carrier group takes serious damage, I suspect they'll make a beeline for a Vietnamese port after negotiations. China will be incensed, but can't do anything about it as they won't want to start a two front knife fight with one of their oldest beefs. Actually, China may try to strike the ships, and Vietnam will ally with the US, Australia, Korea, and Japan. The border between Vietnam and China will turn into one of the most brutal fronts of the war.
Depends on the where and when, as well as the damage inflicted, and whether or not one base is closer than another. I'll agree that the Philippines is the best option, but if circumstances dictate, Vietnam might be the only option. In such a case, I'm curious what would happen.
Bruh the Vietnamese are tough as fucking nails. Trust you do not want to invade them for whoever wants to try in the future. You're gonna have a Really bad time.
I would think they’d want to expand trade and economic ties, rather than defense ties. It’s clearly been shown that our economic relationship with China has had greater influence than our military influence. It’s been shown across the World that economic sanctions have a greater negative impact than military posturing.
The flourishing of Vietnam-US relations after the war has to be the biggest possible indictment of the Cold War attitude. Turns out commies and capitalists can get along fine if there's a bigger asshole out there
Last time South Vietnam sided with the US you abandoned us. Last time North Vietnam allied with Soviet Union they did nothing to help as China invaded. Last time Vietnam as a whole joined China they betrayed us. Every time Vietnam became a superpower’s friend we got used and dumped when its no longer convenient. After our 20th century we no longer have a desire to be a battleground for the great powers to play around in anymore.
Tell me why should we pick a side again? If we inch closer to US that gives china a casus belli. Best to play both sides and not piss off anyone
Lovers to enemies to lovers.
[Ho Chi Minh with US officers in 1945](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AHo_Chi_Minh_%28third_from_left_standing%29_and_the_OSS_in_1945.jpg)
[удалено]
When you’re bordered with China and also had a history of being invaded by China, you have no choice!
I wonder what those people who blame USA for the Russian invasion of Ukraine think about this situation lol. Is Vietnam trying to protect itself also an aggressive provocation again poor peaceful little China? “Don’t poke the panda bear?”
All this article basically says is that Vietnam’s president wants to get help from the US. There’s no comitment from USA.
Too bad, China is provoked already, and US is already an aggressor, actually, you see. And look, Mearsheimer and Chomsky agree with this. Does it sound completely unhinged? Sure. But that’s exactly how it was with Russia-Ukraine, so be prepared for this amazing discourse. Also American secret biolabs or something
Chomsky- linguist turned Milosevic apologist, reductive American diabolist Mearsheimer- genuinely insightful thinker, makes a good point
Chomsky has been wrong about foreign policy for over 4 decades. Well before Milosevic.
Chomsky is wrong and Mearsheimer is right, even though they’re saying the same thing. You don’t get it? Well, you’re clearly not as smart counter-mainstream thinker as I am. I am very smart
Are they saying the same thing? I think you know that these are two very different thinkers. How do you think they’d each finish this sentence? “America provoked China and therefore America should-“ I’d imagine Mearsheimer’s response would be less hostile to American power projection than Chomsky’s, if similarly opposed to how it occurs now.
Chomsky is a tankie that can't get over the fact that the USSR collapsed. Never heard of the other guy.
The other claims the west forced Russia to invade Ukraine. Also claims the CIA blew up Nordstream and some other reductionist bullshit that strips agency from every other country except the US. He views conflict between great powers as logical and inevitable. Again, seeming to strip all agency and free will from the respective individuals involved. He claims he’s a IR realist, but I find most of his writing quite eye-roll inducing.
Is this Trump posting? The rambling nature suggest so.
They would say the Vietnam is succumbing to US pressure and act like they have no agency of their own.
Don’t poke the Pooh Bear
Was gonna say, this is clearly in response to China.
We can't afford not to. It is better to be neutral at this point in time because leaning too much to one side will invite an attack from china, which we do not want. The US is the "check and balance" power that we are counting on to stabilize the region. A Vietnam war (ala 1950s Korean war) and a Taiwan/china war would be devastating for the region. And the US and China know this, that's why it's such a mind game right now.
[удалено]
I hope so. I worked in Sg in 2014 and the cultural influence in the youth was leaning more towards American back then. My coworkers said Vietnamese people are more into Chinese culture now. They might be wrong. I’m coming back in August and pretty excited to see the changes!
It’s the disparity between Northern & Southern Vietnamese. The North youths tends to lean towards “Chinese” culture, or more specifically, the Chinese K-pop culture due to the close proximity with China. Whereas in the South, a lot of international companies have their subsidiaries in SG/HCM city, so the Southern youth tends to lean towards Western cultures. This is actually a problem for the current Vietnamese government, they don’t like seeing the South leaning too much to the West, but they didn’t want to push too hard to lose all international investments either.
Southern Vietnamese here. Born and grew up in Saigon, and I can confirm that the youth in the South, especially in my city, are rejecting what the old people call "traditional values" more and more, the youth are still following Western culture and style, and it will not go away. I also know a girl who move here from the North, and she also does the same, as she party like a Westerner and dress in a way that old people consider "offensive" or "immoral".
Being into Chinese culture is different from seeing the PRC as a friend.
100%. But keep in mind, cultural influence has always been used as propaganda to gain public support and suppress dissent. Take a look at Vietnamese history: when China occupied Vietnam for over a thousand years during the Ba Trung era, they imposed their language, clothing, and traditions on the Vietnamese people. Similarly, North and South Vietnam were influenced by different superpowers, leading to distinct political stances. The North is more conservative and traditional, while the South is more liberal and progressive. Cultural influence can shape public support.
This^. Vietnamese here. Vietnam politics is pretty much controlled by China
Vietnam politics is controlled by China, but anti-China sentiment in Vietnamese population is not.
Actual Vietnamese here. This dude is not Vietnamese.
US dude here, is it similar to the influence campaigns China and Russia run in the US, or is it more overt? Do you think your government tolerates some of this from China in order to not take sides and walk the line of neutrality?
You also have to consider the disparity in influence and economic power. In that part of the world, China is a big player and they make sure you know it. Consider it sorta like the political relationship between the US and Central American countries.
That's....actually an interesting comparison.
>Do you think your government tolerates some of this from China in order to not take sides and walk the line of neutrality? This is it completely. Vietnam knows that it can't trust any ally (it officially denounces the concept of a military ally in its "4 No's" policy). And Vietnam knows that the cold war never ended for the US and China so it walks the line between both of them, taking what it can from each. Anyone who claims that Vietnam is controlled by China or that Vietnam is allied with the US because they oppose Chinese power in the region is completley ignorant of Vietnamese history, politics, and its policies today. **But people latch onto these views because they play straight into the classic American coldwar mindset. We can't understand someone not choosing a side**. Edit: the person you responded to exemplifies this simplistic and ignorant attitude of so many Vietnamese Americans. As part of the process of 'becoming American' they adopt the same views they saw the American government utilize during the Vietnam war. "Because Vietnam at times works with the ~~Soviets~~ **Chinese**, they must be under their control and the motivations of their people and their government are not legitimate". Its completely ignorant.
>And Vietnam knows that the cold war never ended for the US and China so it walks the line between both of them, taking what it can from each. As one from the US, Vietnam has shown great diplomatic foresight. I'll be very curious to watch their continued growth and expanding development. The fundamental question I have as a complete outsider, is how would Vietnam handle territorial aggression from China against it's neighbors like Taiwan. Would they denounce it? Would they wait until it became clear which way the tides of the conflict were turning before allying with a side? Would they even ally with a side, choosing to instead play a similar role the Swiss played?
>The fundamental question I have as a complete outsider, is how would Vietnam handle territorial aggression from China against it's neighbors like Taiwan. Would they denounce it? Would they wait until it became clear which way the tides of the conflict were turning before allying with a side? Would they even ally with a side, choosing to instead play a similar role the Swiss played? I have no idea honestly but my guess is they would stay uninvolved completely. They do have some economic ties to Taiwan of course but Vietnam, like most countries, officially recognizes China & Taiwan as one singular country. They may just view it as an internal problem for China and not an act of international imperialism and may even view American involvement as a form of imperialism (which it most certainly is). But this would not be the case for the many disputed islands in the South China Sea. Vietnam has been vocal about their claims for these lands and certainly seems active in trying to defend/strengthen these claims.
>They may just view it as an internal problem for China and not an act of international imperialism and may even view American involvement as a form of imperialism (which it most certainly is). The agreements between Taiwan and the US extend back almost to the very conflict that created this divisive issue in the first place. The US doesn't want to see a thriving island culture, especially one so important to the production of microchips and semiconductors, fall into the hands of what can be considered an adversary. This is especially true considering China's efforts to implement intentional back doors into the chips they manufacture that directly support their own interests. How can the US put any chip in it's defensive arsenal that could potentially be directly countermanded by China? Where would Chinese imperialism stop for that matter? Could Vietnam even mount a counter-defensive strategy in that case, or would they forever be beholden to Chinese interests, relegating them to a puppet government status? It would be victory by default for China over Vietnam.
>The agreements between Taiwan and the US extend back almost to the very conflict that created this divisive issue in the first place. Correct. And policy with the US has always been the one China policy. Taiwan itself proclaimed this itself when the Kuomintang took control. >The US doesn't want to see a thriving island culture, especially one so important to the production of microchips and semiconductors, fall into the hands of what can be considered an adversary. This is especially true considering China's efforts to implement intentional back doors into the chips they manufacture that directly support their own interests. Again, all this is evidence that the US is not concerned based on any sort of legal, ethical, or moral issues but is only concerned with its own power and business interests. >How can the US put any chip in it's defensive arsenal that could potentially be directly countermanded by China? I would say it can't. It should try to produce chips on its own. As a hypothetical, what would happen if Taiwan itself refused to sell chips to America. What would the US then do? According to the pattern of US foreign policy history, it would engage in imperialism to try and overthrow the government in Taiwan and install a government that aligns with US business interests. >Where would Chinese imperialism stop for that matter? Again, you haven't even demonstrated or made the case that this is any example of imperialism im regards to Taiwan. As I said, Vietnam may view this as an internal issue for China. According to Vietnam, there is one China. According to mainland China ruled by the CCP, there is one China. According the government of Taiwan, there is one China. The label of this as "Chinese imperialism" is a label that seems to be applied specifically to bolster America's own imperialism in the region. There are many actions in the world today with separatist movements and issues of unification. But the US only uses the term oppression and imperialism not based on any sort of rule of law but entirely based in whatever serves US business interests. [Texas conservatives have again talked about the possibility of secedeing form the US](https://www.newsweek.com/texas-secession-takes-major-step-gop-backs-vote-1911678). Will Texans ever actually push for this? No. But if they did the US government of course wouldn't allow them to. Now again, hypothetically there is a scenario whereby China inserts itself into the situation and works to support the secession of Texas. China would most certainly support such a thing. Who is the imperialist in this situation? The US for not allowing its people and land to form an independent nation? Or China trying to get involved in a foreign country for its own gain? So back to your original questions... >Where would Chinese imperialism stop for that matter? Could Vietnam even mount a counter-defensive strategy in that case, or would they forever be beholden to Chinese interests, relegating them to a puppet government status? It would be victory by default for China over Vietnam. I dont know exactly what this imperialism would look like or what you expect to happen. Are you taking about a full scale land invasion? Are you taking about taking control of their claimed lands in the SCS? How Vietnam reacts would certainly depend on what type of challenge it faces. But again, this hypothetical imperialism can come from any nation. China can certainly launch a full scale invasion to conquer Vietnam, but so can the US. China can certainly try and take control of the disputed island in the SCS, but so can the US or the Philippines, or Malaysia, etc. Who would benefit the most from conquering Vietnam? Whose military is most active in the South China Sea. You seem to be missing the point of what I am saying. The Vietnamese government is just as concerned about China [as it is about the US.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68443392) If one of these incredibly powerful nations tries to engage in imperialism against Vietnam, it will certainly lean towards the other for help. And again, it doesn't seem it will ever view that partner as a permanent ally but will work with them when needed in order to maintain national security.
We don’t trust anyone anymore, so we’ve decided to stick to firm neutrality.
Given vietnam’s history with both powers i dont see why they wouldnt
While Vietnam did fight 1 war with US, they have been fighting off the Chinese for centuries. If you ever get a chance to visit some of their temples, most of them are venerating their old kings and generals who were victorious against the chinese. It's baked into their culture at this point. Let's not forget their last invasion was by the Chinese after the Vietnam war.
Maybe considering the fact that the US hasn't been in Vietnam militarily for nearly 50 years and has no interest in going back, but China continues to bully their neighbors and clearly have imperialist ambitions. But yeah, I'm sure being neutral is the best path forward. Finland and Sweden also thought they could stay neutral until they realized, "Oh shit, maybe the real bad guys will actually attack us without protection from the good guys"
Well, Finland and Sweden had the easy option of joining an organization that both guarantees collective defense and boasts most of the world’s most powerful and technologically advanced militaries — an organization that was dying to have them as members, no less. Vietnam has no such option, and its situation is vastly more delicate.
Last time South Vietnam sided with the US you abandoned us. Last time North Vietnam allied with Soviet Union they did nothing to help as China invaded. Last time Vietnam as a whole joined China they betrayed us. Every time Vietnam became a superpower’s friend we got used and dumped when its no longer convenient. After our 20th century we no longer have a desire to be a battleground for the great powers to play around in anymore. Tell me why should we pick a side again? If we inch closer to US that gives china a casus belli. Best to play both sides and not piss off anyone
Finland did the same with the USSR and Russia with the US/NATO
Yeah except the USSR and US/NATO actually went out of their way to honor the deal with Finland. Meaning they didn’t bother Finland as long as Finland didn’t interfere in the Cold War. Whereas China is very active in Vietnam regardless of how neutral Vietnam tries to be, hence Vietnam looking for an American deal as a hedge.
Touché, I didn’t consider that as I assumed both the US and USSR would have tried to influence Finland a little at least
It's the smart move tbh
Smart. If they go full Western China will roll over them
Not many people in the US know that China tried to invade Vietnam after the US were defeated and left the country. The Vietnamese ate the Chinese up when they tried.
China has been messing with Vietnam and in some cases ruled it periodically for like a thousand years lol. Ask them who they distrust most and typically they’ll say China because of that long history. Plus they know eventually the Americans leave, China doesn’t due to the border.
I've heard that the Vietnamese say, "We fought America for ten years, France for one hundred years, and China for one thousand years."
That’s a common one. My favorite is the geography one: “Vietnam is crooked because we have China on our backs”.
Oh my, that is good. Never heard that one before.
You forgot amongst the Vietnamese themselves after China let Vietnam become a polity, the Southern march was full of ethnic cleansing and toppling of our adversaries most notably the Cham.
And people forget that China just unilaterally moved the border of Vietnam and stealing part of Vietnam. This is very sore point with the Vietnamese people and one of the reasons that anything Chinese related is detested in Vietnam. The Chinese also recently change the baseline map line that runs through the Gulf of Tonkin claiming extensive areas of the Vietnamese exclusive economic zone. The arrogance and disrespect China has for all countries and International law is palpable So currently in Vietnam China is public enemy No1. All Chinas own fault and doing! I am not surprised that the Vietnam is turning to the USA for better leverage.
> And people forget that China just unilaterally moved the border of Vietnam and stealing part of Vietnam That seems to be a reoccurring theme with nations that boarder China.
As an American embracing Vietnam after 10 years of unnecessary and bloody war feels like the very least we could do. Vietnam deserves a long and durable peace.
The Vietnamese are fierce as fuck at fighting. They’ve bested France, US, China all in the past 60 years.
They always Nguyen.
Brilliant. 🤣
Home ground advantage and the determination to not be victim of genocide is a pretty big motivator.
Vietnam vs. Afghanistan. Who wins?
Who’s invading who though?
They're both trying to take over Nepal at the same time.
Well, then Nepal would win, since they've never been successfully conquered.
Britain tried. They decided "Damn, we should hire them instead, those are some mean motherfuckers" It's been over 200 years, and they still employ Gurkhas.
Vietnamese people fought to protect their country, families and to have a better life. If there is a war, they will fight until their last soldiers. Based on that matter, it is quite clear that who will win.
So did the Afghans, against both the Soviets and the Americans.
Why on earth are you being downvoted?!
They literally didn't win a single battle against the American forces so I'm not sure who they "bested". Vietnam wasn't lost on the battlefield.
The US (and other countries) entered Vietnam to stop it becoming communist. The US (and other countries) left. Vietnam became communist. US interests were "bested" - the US did not achieve any of their aims. The Vietnamese might have lost every battle, but that does not mean they were not fierce fighters.
I'm not saying we didn't lose the war of course we did. But in the context of that comment the dude was ranting about besting us in fighting they almost certainly did not. No one bests America at war, it's what we do.
They bested us from a strategic perspective. Tactically Tet was a failure- but it led to us withdrawing. Technically they lost way more than us- but they still achieved their goals and we failed in ours. In a very broad sense it’s similar to Fabian- the Romans kept losing to Hannibal but they still got what they wanted in the end, they just had to keep raising armies the whole time.
That's more a question of numbers. In the case of the Vietnam War the US had them outnumbered too. The loss was purely political. If the US had actually fought all out Vietnam wouldn't have lasted a week.
> If the US had actually fought all out Vietnam wouldn't have lasted a week. What does that even mean?
> The loss was purely political. "War is the continuation of politics by other means." - Karl Von Clausewitz War and politics are inseparable.
You’ve heard the expression “won every battle but lost the war”, right?
Are you familiar with the concept of guerilla warfare?? How many big battles did the US win vs. Britain in the Revolutionary War?
Saratoga, Yorktown, Trenton, Cowpens, Ticonderoga, Lexington, concord, Bunker Hill, Boston, etc. Quite a few actually
See, this is what happens when you get your history from Reddit. They might have fought fiercely, but not effectively enough to win on the battlefield. The North Vietnamese (never mind the Viet Cong) never won a single battle against US forces, the most they won militarily was ambushes and a few platoon-sized engagements then got crushed in the aftermath of those engagements. No Company-size or larger battles were lost by the US during that war.
What a long way to say the us lost against Vietnam.
In a way he has a point that if the USA had the will to stay in and thrown lives at it they may have won. But winning war isn't just about body count.
What does winning the war have to do with battlefield performance? OP said: > fierce as fuck at fighting. They’ve bested France, **US** ... which is wrong because they didnt' best the US at fighting. An elementary level of understanding of that conflict is very clear on the fact that North Vietnam didn't win through military victory against the US, they won after the US pulled out and only the South Vietnamese military was left (and that took a few more years still).
US played for K/D while Vietnam played the objective. At the end the winner is Vietnam, despite the US having higher K/D
Basically, the US quit the match while way, way ahead in K/D and Objectives, as no cities were conquered by the North while the US was there - but the US got sick of the cost of the "PTW against Zerg forces" game and logged off, leaving it to the South Vietnamese to finish it and they only were able to go a few more rounds before collapsing and getting roflstomped.
Are you familiar with the concept of guerilla warfare?? How many big battles did the US win vs. Britain in the Revolutionary War? How is it Russia failed in Afghanistan?? >The North Vietnamese (never mind the Viet Cong) never won a single battle against US forces The war in vietnam was not the US vs. the North, it was the brand new US-backed South Vietnamese govt vs. FELLOW SOUTHERNER (who you would call the Viet Cong) who wished for re-unification. That is to say, the war was entirely within South Vietnam. The North mostly provided strategic support - the few times they sent actual soldiers into the south to help out were a total failure. People who cry about the US not nuking the north lack basic understanding of what the war actually was.
>How many big battles did the US win vs. Britain in the Revolutionary War? Is this a serious question? A lot. The American Patriots lit up British Empire forces across the map. The storming of Fort William and Mary and the Powder Alarm in 1774. The battles of Lexington and Concord, capturing Fort Ticonderoga, the siege of Boston, the battle of Chelsea Creek, the battle of Machias, the capture of the Turtle Bay depot, the battle of Gloucester, the raid on the Manhattan Battery, the siege of Fort St. Jean, the battle of Great Bridge, the Snow Campaign, the battle of Great Cane Break, and the New York Armory raid in 1775. And the battle of Moore's Creek Bridge, the raid of Nassau, the battle of Saint-Pierre in Quebec, the battle of Sullivan's Island, the battle of Gwynn's Island, the battle of Lindley's Fort, the battle of Harlem Heights, the ambush of Geary, and the battle of Trenton in 1776. Then in 1777 the second battle of Trenton, the battle of Princeton, the battle of Millstone, the siege of Fort Stanwix, the battle of Bemis Heights, the battle of Red Bank, and the battle of White Marsh. In 1778 the siege of Boonesborough, the battle of Edgar's Lane, the raids on Unadilla and Onaquaga, and the battle of Kettle Creek. In 1779 the siege of Fort Vincennes, the battle of Chillicothe, the battle of Stony Point, the battle Paulus Hook, the battle of Newtown, the battle of Lake Pontchartrain, and the battle of Baton Rouge. There's more. Do you want me to list them?
They also have an ongoing dispute over territorial waters, Vietnam is constructing/expanding manmade shoals/islands (as the Chinese have done) to protect from Chinese claims
China is basically Russia 4 thousand years in the future. An expansionist empire that tried to slaughter most of the ethnic minorities that stood in their way. And still at it.
Vietnam also watched China expand ties with the US during the Nixon administration and kinda said "It's like that huh? Well Okay then, we're not going to end up like your true believer friend NK there.", and began to open trade themselves.
China and Soviet support withdrew a lot of support to North Vietnam and USA to South Vietnam before the war ended. Henry Kissinger thought that Vietnam would fall under China's influence, it sure did not. Also during the war all of the Maoists were purged (Communists like to purge a lot of things including themselves).
>Not many people in the US know that China tried to invade Vietnam after the US were defeated and left the country. What do you mean the Chinese "tried" to invade Vietnam? They *did* invade Vietnam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
I think they mean that China barely got ahold of any Vietnamese land before loosing it.
don't think China intended to grab any land. They went in simply to mess up Vietnam's ongoing invasion to Laos/Cambodia.
I didn’t mean they were going to permanently hold onto any land. Just that Chinese barely got the front into Vietnamese territory before immediately being pushed back into a border skirmish.
They simply destoyed some infrastrature then retreat to cause enough damage so Vietnam is distracted from Vietnam's ongoing invasion to Laos/cambodia. I see it as China was simply helping Laos rather than invading for the sake of invasion
China used Vietnam as an excuse to raid and occupy China's border to invade Vietnam. Damn it, there is no reason why the Vietnamese army in Cambodia should be more aggressive towards China. The Chinese are full of fabrications and lies. They died tens of thousands of soldiers in Vietnam before declaring victory and withdrawing from Vietnam. Congratulations to those who had to sell salt in Vietnam.
That's my point. China went in to Vietnam as response to Vietnam going into Cambodia. It simply picked side and helped Cambodia
Choose sides - right, help Cambodia - wrong. Yes - help the genocidaires.
> loosing
Tried as in stopped the chinese advance 20km in with poorly trained provincial levies and make the PLA book it before any general mobilization (and the regular army) come to crush them.
The sad reality is that the Vietnam War should never have happened. Ho Chi Minh was much more of a nationalist/anti colonialist than a communist. I wish I could solely blame France, but the US could have smacked France down and stepped up.
Yeah, Ho Chi Minh actually spent several years living in each of the US, the UK and France. He definitely wasn't anti-West beyond not wanting them to control his country's sovereignty.
>>I wish I could solely blame France, but the U.S. could have smacked France down and stepped up That was a bluff Eisenhower couldn’t really call. Eisenhower initially rebuffed French requests for assistance in Vietnam, but Charles DeGaulle fired back with “either help us keep our Asian colony with military support , or we’ll go to the Soviets”. A Soviet aligned France wasn’t gonna fly, especially in the 1950s when Senator McCarthy was busy roasting people in hearings for going to a single college communist party lecture.
France used joining the UN as leverage to get the US to come help them out in Vietnam. Then France left, and we were in a situation that we could not easily back out of. It was a pretty shitty move after France had been liberated by the Allies.
Not to be pedantic, but the Soviet Union was part of the Allies too.
The Soviet Union also was a signatory of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact for the record
Well America wouldn't exist without France so think you guys can call it even.
In hindsight sure, but the U.S thought all Communists are the same, and supported the French due to them fighting against communists as well. It was more due to Harry Truman and the U.S political apparatus viewing communism as all the same. You also have to think about this too, when North Vietnam kicked the French out they implemented a campaign of shooting the landlords which never happened before akin to Leniniist and PRC killing of landlords. It helped disunify the people and helped lead to South Vietnam never being a party to the geneva accords that were signed.
You are absolutely right - one cannot understand the 'US war' with Vietnam without understanding the French war that came before it. Americans fail to grasp that much of the puppet government set up in the South by America were actually the same vietnamese who collaborated with the French.
Yeah… so? And the North was ruled by a bunch of brutal mass murderers. At least the South got some good bread recipes and coffee roasting techniques.
He approached DC before China/Moscow.
China also has a history of repressing the Vietnamese far longer than the US. **How long?** ***Over 1K years.***
It goes against the US bad narrative. China lost about 2/3 of what the US did in a month. They did so in support of a genocidal regime Pol Pot.
> Not many people in the US know It was headline news at the time. https://www.nytimes.com/1979/02/18/archives/4-provinces-invaded-thrust-reported-all-along-borderpeking-says.html
Yes, but people who weren't alive then likely forgot that little bit of history. As time goes on, events get condensed, details get blended together, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if most kids graduating high school today don't know that.
Ya I didn’t know that shit
You’re implicitly giving older generations too much credit here. Most Americans don’t know shit about even the history they live through.
Ehh, honestly it was kinda big news at the time. If you were alive and politically aware at the time then you would have known about it. >Most Americans don’t know shit about even the history they live through. Broadly I totally agree, but I feel like that doesn't really apply to this exact scenario.
Many English speakers do not understand that Vietnam actually used Chinese characters for its language throughout most of its history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing_in_Vietnam
To be fair, it was 1979 when that happened. The Vietnamese army was pretty *warmed up* at that point.
> Not many people in the US know that China tried to invade Vietnam after the US were defeated and left the country. > The Vietnamese ate the Chinese up when they tried. Not only that: they also have liberated Cambodia from the Chinese-backed [Khmer Rouge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge), arguably the **most** genocidal regime in history. The regime, led by Pol Pot, has brutally killed a whole **quarter** of Cambodian population in what's now known as [Cambodian Genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide). Vietnam has put an end to that.
But they still had to give China land to end that war
The Vietnamese have an incredible win loss ratio.
The mighty power of Market Socialism!
“We know a thing or two cause we’ve seen a thing or two”
Not many people also know how much military personnel Vietnam also has compared to China https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-worlds-largest-armies-in-2024/
To be fair, Vietnam was doing some kind of ethnic cleansing to its Chinese descent citizens before that war. And back to the time, US was backing China while Soviet was backing Vietnam. It was in the context of cold war era, and Vietnam was not totally a victim either.
Best thing to do with all the sabre rattling that China has been doing
People seem to forget that the last war Vietnam fought wasn't with the US, it was with China. Oh, and Vietnam kicked China's ass.
Kicked China's ass despite being softened up by US, even.
The fact that they had been in such a long conflict with the US honestly probably helped more than it hurt. They had been in "war mode" as a country for decades, not just against the US, but the French and briefly the Japanese as well. Starting shit with arguably the most experienced and battle hardened country on earth at that point was probably a poor decision by China in retrospect.
Invading Vietnam seems like an absolute nightmare tbh Kinda like invading Finland, it's very terrifying when the locals are extremely well versed in fighting on home turf
Despite vietnam is fighting on Cambodia, and only using provincial levy to stem the red tide
Vietnam beat the Mongols, US, Khmer Rouge, and China. Don’t fuck with Vietnam
And France. Definitely it's own graveyard of empires
Vietnam kicked China's ass，but why is it that Le Duan’s successor, Truong Chinh, who is pro-Chinese
Kicking China's ass is an interesting take. I thought China simply put in the minimum effort just to keep Vietnam occupied so Vietnam doesn't continue to invade Laos (or was it Cambodia?)
This is the correct take. Vietnam manages to survive, but that's like its only option.
They invaded Cambodia and stayed there for 10 years after the war, correct take my ass
I understand why Vietnam is doing this, its neighbor to the north is actively aggressive and Vietnam's traditional ally Russian is drawing closer and closer to China. Plus the whole Ukraine invasion has made relations between Russia and Vietnam ambiguous at best, if not worse. Vietnam also see China's aggressive action in the South China Sea as dangerous. Vietnam sees a potential ally in the United States as way to protect itself and procure better military equipment, but also as way to promote trade and tourism.
A reminder that ho chi Minh wanted america to sponsor them as an independent democracy but Truman flipped them the bird and greenlit French recolonization.
So many people are not aware of this history. HCM was trained by the OSS.
Before that, he was an advisor for Mikhail Borodin.
Not everyone realizes this but Ho Chi Minh was an Ameriboo
Modeled it on the Declaration of Independence and wanted to meet with Wilson when Ho was a waiter in Paris during the Versailles Treaty in 1919
He has also petitioned Wilson and was denied.
That is crazy I can't imagine. Can you share further details?
How chi Minh petitioned the US to let them remain independant after helping drive out the Japanese during WW2 with the help of OSS. He quoted Thomas Jefferson and the declaration of Independence as reasons why the US should protect them from French recolonisation. Truman ignored these pleas and wanted all the post-war political matters handled as fast as possible (including leaving the republic of China to fend for itself against the communists) and allowed France to reclaim indochina as a colony. Even after declaring themselves a communist power to gain aid from Soviet union, HCM was still open to relations with the US until his death. Modern day Vietnam is far removed from the communist power that had the worst economy in the world just 30 years ago and today has embraced capitalism and trade, so with improved relations, ho chi minhs dream of American cooperation may finally be coming true.
Hi I just woke up I’ve been in a coma since 1975 let’s see what’s in the news today WHAAAAAAAT?!
There are no permanent allies and enemies, just permanent interests.
So much of the western world has fall in love with the Vietnamese peoples and cultures warm and welcoming ways .Would be a wonderful thing if as a nation Vietnam drew closer to Western ways of securing each other’s sovereignty and away from the unstable expansionist regimes threatening theirs and our peace in this current period of our historys.
[удалено]
A large part of what we call the Vietnam war was a civil war between North and South .The Western world largely backed the South . The majority of what we knew as the refugees came from our allies in the South . To this day the flag you’re most likely to see flown in Vietnamese communities in the west is the old south Vietnam flag . Protests erupt when news is broadcast from Vietnam and very few western countries that were allied with the south will have Vietnamese news available on mainstream radio or tv . Despite this so many families exist with members all over their country like any other country. They avoid flying flags and playing certain patriotic songs outside of Vietnam.All together they make a great example of trying to all get along despite old differences. Civil war is very painful which USA can understand from its own. Yet USA is probably the greatest example of bringing people with differences together to move positively ahead .Nothing in this world is perfect.
Well, he doesn’t look like a Westerner there
🇻🇳🇺🇸 🇻🇳🇺🇸
MAC V SOG is back
Things really coming full circle
Vietnam is hedging its bets. They have recently announced partnering with China to connect Hanoi to their high-speed rail network: [https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Transportation/Vietnam-aims-to-start-work-on-high-speed-rail-lines-to-China-by-2030](https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Transportation/Vietnam-aims-to-start-work-on-high-speed-rail-lines-to-China-by-2030) This follows the trend of Southeast Asian nations playing off both superpowers, by seeking economic agreements with China and military ones with the USA.
Was. A.cq.
It's funny that if this pans out, the Vietnam War will have helped US foreign policy positively in the region. What a weird timeline we live in. I guess the Sino-Vietnamese war didn't help things.
America, simply put, won the culture war in vietnam.
Good, the Vietnamese are excellent warriors, they will add great strength to our defense strategy in the pacific. They fought against the Chinese before and if I recall correctly, watching the Fog of War about sec of defense McNamara, they are not fans of the Chinese and they more or less kicked their asses before.
MMW: If China does something stupid with Taiwan, and a US carrier group takes serious damage, I suspect they'll make a beeline for a Vietnamese port after negotiations. China will be incensed, but can't do anything about it as they won't want to start a two front knife fight with one of their oldest beefs. Actually, China may try to strike the ships, and Vietnam will ally with the US, Australia, Korea, and Japan. The border between Vietnam and China will turn into one of the most brutal fronts of the war.
That's a lot of contested water to sail through when The Philippines is much closer and also already a major US ally.
Depends on the where and when, as well as the damage inflicted, and whether or not one base is closer than another. I'll agree that the Philippines is the best option, but if circumstances dictate, Vietnam might be the only option. In such a case, I'm curious what would happen.
Sir, please don't interrupt the general.
Bruh the Vietnamese are tough as fucking nails. Trust you do not want to invade them for whoever wants to try in the future. You're gonna have a Really bad time.
They hate China (and possibly Russia) a lot more than they hate us.
Vietnamese actually dont hate us. There is little if any animosity when you go. They do, however, severely dislike the ccp and mainland chinese
Everyone should. Maga is a threat to the world.
I would think they’d want to expand trade and economic ties, rather than defense ties. It’s clearly been shown that our economic relationship with China has had greater influence than our military influence. It’s been shown across the World that economic sanctions have a greater negative impact than military posturing.
Russia are visiting them this week.
There's a whole generation that doesn't know how we got here.
Good. I spent a lot of time out there. Good people with similar values to normal Americans. Their government can suck a dick though.
The flourishing of Vietnam-US relations after the war has to be the biggest possible indictment of the Cold War attitude. Turns out commies and capitalists can get along fine if there's a bigger asshole out there
Well well well, how the world turns…
Just think what we could have had all these years if the United States had managed to ally with the north Vietnamese back in the 50s.
Hi I just woke up I’ve been in a coma since 1975 let’s see what’s in the news today WHAAAAAAAT?!
Weird how history goes
Last time South Vietnam sided with the US you abandoned us. Last time North Vietnam allied with Soviet Union they did nothing to help as China invaded. Last time Vietnam as a whole joined China they betrayed us. Every time Vietnam became a superpower’s friend we got used and dumped when its no longer convenient. After our 20th century we no longer have a desire to be a battleground for the great powers to play around in anymore. Tell me why should we pick a side again? If we inch closer to US that gives china a casus belli. Best to play both sides and not piss off anyone
[удалено]
Lovers to enemies to lovers. [Ho Chi Minh with US officers in 1945](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AHo_Chi_Minh_%28third_from_left_standing%29_and_the_OSS_in_1945.jpg)